Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination

PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
edited July 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
Thank Christ.

Answering a 127-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

PeekingDuck on
«13456723

Posts

  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    In other news, breasts are great!

    PeekingDuck on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    But the DC handgun ban was working so well!
    /sarcasm

    Picardathon on
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited June 2008
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    Picardathon on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    You won't be. See: Canada.

    Nova_C on
    Tube wrote: »
    No, I hate D&D more than the other subforums because it's more of a pain in my arse.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Who lives Who dies Who Guacamoles? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    But the DC handgun ban was working so well!
    /sarcasm
    How much of that is because DC is right next to Virginia, though?

    Fencingsax on
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
    GNU Terry Pratchett
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    None.

    PeekingDuck on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Who lives Who dies Who Guacamoles? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    None.
    Yes, because trying to control handguns when a state that has abysmal control is an hour away will totally be representative of effective gun control. Now, whether banning handguns is an effective gun control method or not I don't know, but I do know that it doesn't help when there's an easily accessed supply right next door.

    Fencingsax on
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
    GNU Terry Pratchett
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    As much as gun control laws are indeed of uncertain usefulness in actually reducing crime, this is the silliest argument that is frequently used in this discussion. Does any law have any theoretical effectiveness based on this criteria? After all, criminals won't care! Why bother having a law against breakng into someone's home? I was robbed last year and the criminals didn't even care about the law. Obviously, it's ineffective.

    Now, you could argue that the reason strict regulation would be ineffective is because significant illegal channels exist and anyone with even a moderate criminal connection would find getting a gun easy unless you imposed absolutely draconian controls, that would make some sense.

    durandal4532 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    There is a link to Scalia's opinion on cspan and that site. Also the dissenting ramblings is at the end of the opinion.

    PeekingDuck on
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.

    Umaro on
    Dogs.jpg
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Gooey wrote: »
    Yay! Maybe now we can start putting gun control laws in place that actually, you know, work to solve the problem of gun crime.

    Honestly I don't think that any gun control laws would limit crime because criminals don't care about the law. I would love to be proven wrong though.

    You won't be. See: Canada.

    Alright, let's see Canada.
    c011218a.gif

    That said, gun control is of course not the only factor at play here, nor is it by itself a sufficient factor to reduce crime. But it certainly helps.


    EDIT: Fixed table.
    EDIT2: To hell with the table. Just look at the damn website.

    Richy on
    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Canada also at least appears to give a shit about poor people.

    Doc on
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    The DC handgun ban was ineffective because of lack of enforcement, it's really a shame that it couldn't work.

    Heartlash on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    The DC handgun ban was ineffective because of lack of enforcement, it's really a shame that it couldn't work.

    The DC ban was ineffective for lots of reasons that it was pretty powerless to address. Having a fundamentally ineffective law on the books is kinda dumb.

    Also, yay SCOTUS.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    Heartlash wrote: »
    The DC handgun ban was ineffective because of lack of enforcement, it's really a shame that it couldn't work.

    It was pretty much impossible to enforce.

    Doc on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Bama on
  • jotjot Registered User
    edited June 2008
    I know that as an European the culture gap won't allow me to ever understand the American attitude towards firearms.
    But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.

    jot on
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Maybe Washington DC should just export some of its black people.

    Umaro on
    Dogs.jpg
  • arod_77arod_77 __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    The right to drive cars is not enumerated in our constitution.

    arod_77 on
    glitteratsigcopy.jpg
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?

    PeekingDuck on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    jot wrote: »
    But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.

    I own a few, and I agree.

    Doc on
  • RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    My pet theory is that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment quick on the heels of the American Revolution, and right in the middle of the French Revolution. Revolting against the government was like the cool thing to do, and you have to imagine that they were all for it having just reaped the benefits. So the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to give citizens the power to revolt against an oppressive government.

    In that case, it should be expanded to allow the private ownership of RPGs, assault rifles, fighter jets, and ICBMs.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.

    Umaro on
    Dogs.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?

    Because Obama keeps bringing it up. ALL THE TIME. It truly is one of his major campaign points.

    Doc on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?
    I'm going to hazard a wild guess here, and Jeffe can strike me down if I'm wrong.

    I think he might be voting based on more than a single issue, or even a set number of "primary issues" and is instead attempting to consider the candidates as a whole and who he thinks will do a better job. It may be that he agrees in some places more with McCain than Obama, but believes that Obama's policy decisions are on the whole a better direction for the country than McCains.


    OR he might be a giant hypocrite ninny but you never know.

    durandal4532 on
    camo_sig2.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jot wrote: »
    I know that as an European the culture gap won't allow me to ever understand the American attitude towards firearms.
    But I'll still say that it's retarded that you have to take a test to be allowed to drive a car but you don't have to do something similar when you want to own a gun.

    The Swiss own more guns per capita than we do...

    moniker on
    tea-1.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Umaro wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
    So now it's about guns being more accident prone? People here in the U.S. might be better off with those things for self-defense, but I don't think our troops would feel all that safe if we took away their rifles and armed them with mace.

    Bama on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe,

    I'm curious. How do you reconcile your voting for Obama with his ideas to ban semi-automatic weapons, as he answered in his political survey. Is this not a primary issue for you? Or do you think he is more of a happy figurehead with little actual power regarding civil liberty restriction?

    When did the President get restricted to only have influence on 1 single issue per term?

    moniker on
    tea-1.jpg
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Single-issue voters are unimaginably retarded.

    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
    Don't do it, MikeMan! It's suicide!

    Bama on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Single-issue voters are unimaginably retarded.

    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
    Would you say it's the single issue you care most about?

    Richy on
    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Umaro wrote: »
    Boo. I don't think anyone should be able to have a gun. Not even the fucking military. No one has the right to wield that sort of power.

    Goddamn I've become a hippie.
    How do you feel about pointy sticks? Automobiles?

    Automobiles are not designed for the express purpose of killing/wounding. If someone insists on self-protection, they'd be better off with a taser, knife or pepper spray or some shit. Much less chance of accidental hurtings.
    So now it's about guns being more accident prone? People here in the U.S. might be better off with those things for self-defense, but I don't think our troops would feel all that safe if we took away their rifles and armed them with mace.

    Obviously we can't take away the military's guns... I meant it as more of a "let's all smoke pot and achieve world peace" statement. Though we should definitely spend a lot less money on that shit.

    They are developing all sorts of non-lethal weapons, which is great but doesn't exactly seem to be high-priority.

    Umaro on
    Dogs.jpg
  • galenbladegalenblade Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.

    Spot the irony.

    galenblade on
    linksig.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been, since it didn't incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states, and made sure to declare that the individual right to own a firearm granted by the 2nd Amendment is in fact rather limited:
    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

    “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

    “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U. S., at 179.”

    Lawndart on
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.

    PeekingDuck on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Richy wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Single-issue voters are unimaginably retarded.

    In fact, I would vote for a candidate, no matter what, if they promised to cleanse the country of single-issue voters.
    Would you say it's the single issue you care most about?

    I would, yes.

    MikeMan on
    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • UmaroUmaro Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Well, as a gun control semi-advocate, this ruling really isn't nearly as bad as I'd feared it could have been,


    You might say we... dodged a bullet.

    :winky:

    Umaro on
    Dogs.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Oh, and if you ever want to re-affirm why you shouldn't have gone to law school, try reading the part of Scalia's opinion where he parses, in mind-numbing detail, the exact legal definition of every single word of the 2nd Amendment.

    Lawndart on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Who lives Who dies Who Guacamoles? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    On that alone I am a single issue voter (or in this election, will abstain), because without it all the others mean nothing.
    That's not actually true (see: the rest of the first world), so I think you should vote.

    Fencingsax on
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
    GNU Terry Pratchett
«13456723
Sign In or Register to comment.